Tribunal member and historian Ann Parsonson grilled Crown lawyers on the impact of rates, saying families who stayed on the land to "keep the home fires burning" were often forced to give up land to pay rates arrears.
She asked what action the Government had taken after a 2007 report found Maori land was often over-valued, and hence charged too much in rates, because valuations were based on market value even though the land could not be sold.
Responding to questions about the foreshore and seabed, Crown counsel Geoff Melvin conceded that the Crown's belief in 1840, based on English common law, that it owned the foreshore and seabed was mistaken.
However, the Crown would have regulated the foreshore and seabed in any case as one of its legitimate kawanatanga (governorship) functions.
Earlier some claimants argued that economic deprivation in Northland, especially among Maori, was a direct result of government actions, starting as early as 1840 with the imposition of customs duties that ended Russell's booming exports and the subsequent shift of the capital to Auckland.
Crown counsel Kevin Hill said topography, isolation, poor soils and a boom-bust economy based on extractive industries were more important factors in Northland's lacklustre economy.
He conceded, however, government land purchase and tenure policies had played a part, and the government had failed to ensure Maori retained enough land to form an economic base.
The tribunal's Stage I report, which dealt with broader issues of sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi, released in 2014, found Ngapuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty.
The Crown position held British sovereignty was attained by Governor Hobson's proclamations of May 1840 and their publication later that year.